Tactics from the coach

[efcskip47]

Sorry to bring up the ANZAC Day game again, but its more a generalisation.
Why does your coach, Mr Malthouse, make the boys play around the boundary line?
Umpiring aside, I think thats where the game was decided last week as the Bombers went through the guts, and most of the time Collingwood kicked wide.
What are the supporters thoughts on these tactics?

 

[spartan-magpie]

Sorry to bring up the ANZAC Day game again, but its more a generalisation.
Why does your coach, Mr Malthouse, make the boys play around the boundary line?
Umpiring aside, I think thats where the game was decided last week as the Bombers went through the guts, and most of the time Collingwood kicked wide.
What are the supporters thoughts on these tactics?

tactics were shocking.. but, even after playing terribly for the majority of the day, we were 13 points up with 3 or so minutes to go.. rocca was given a riduculous incorrect penalty against him and this turned the tide...

our tactics make us too vulnerable against inferior sides willing to run down the corridor.

 

[efcskip47]

our tactics make us too vulnerable against inferior sides willing to run down the corridor.

what is malthouses theory behind the poor tactics?

 

[Jabso]

Well a lot of people aren't happy with it but it's just a different gameplan with it's strengths and flaws.

The theory is if you make a mistake in the middle of the ground your opponent can more easily punish you. If you do it on the boundary line, the opponent doesn't have enough space to damage you, and you'll probably get a throw in which gives you another chance to win the ball back. Obviously it's a little harder to attack yourself.

It makes entries inside 50 more predictable (and IMO makes decision making much simpler provided you don't come in via the boundary but with a little room to move), which is good for your forwards, but also good for opposing defenders.

It can be and has been done right, just because it's not what Geelong are Hawthorn do doesn't make it right. Most premiership teams have a completely different gameplan to the premier the year before.

I'm not against a wide gameplan as long as we mix it up to break the ultimate drawback of playing wide: predictability. That means bringing it through the middle every now and again. If we play wide a lot, we should spread the defence and have a lot of space in the middle, so when we do get loose there we should be able to have more higher quality attacks. It's like in American football. If you persist with a strong running game, defenders commit for the run and respect it more, however it also means it opens up your passing game because they won't expect it. This is how we should play the wide gameplan.

Also another key to playing wide is the ability to switch, which we don't seem to be able to do regularly.

 

[efcskip47]

good response jabso. clear and concise

 

[spartan-magpie]

drawback of playing wide: predictability. That means bringing it through the middle every now and again. If we play wide a lot, we should spread the defence and have a lot of space in the middle, so when we do get loose there we should be able to have more higher quality attacks.
Also another key to playing wide is the ability to switch, which we don't seem to be able to do regularly.

fully agree with this mr jabso... also.. when you gonna get K2.. i wanna shoot your head clean off

 

[loki04]

Well a lot of people aren't happy with it but it's just a different gameplan with it's strengths and flaws.

The theory is if you make a mistake in the middle of the ground your opponent can more easily punish you. If you do it on the boundary line, the opponent doesn't have enough space to damage you, and you'll probably get a throw in which gives you another chance to win the ball back. Obviously it's a little harder to attack yourself.

It makes entries inside 50 more predictable (and IMO makes decision making much simpler provided you don't come in via the boundary but with a little room to move), which is good for your forwards, but also good for opposing defenders.

It can be and has been done right, just because it's not what Geelong are Hawthorn do doesn't make it right. Most premiership teams have a completely different gameplan to the premier the year before.

I'm not against a wide gameplan as long as we mix it up to break the ultimate drawback of playing wide: predictability. That means bringing it through the middle every now and again. If we play wide a lot, we should spread the defence and have a lot of space in the middle, so when we do get loose there we should be able to have more higher quality attacks. It's like in American football. If you persist with a strong running game, defenders commit for the run and respect it more, however it also means it opens up your passing game because they won't expect it. This is how we should play the wide gameplan.

Also another key to playing wide is the ability to switch, which we don't seem to be able to do regularly.

This is only true for direct turnovers, if you are playing through the center usually you have numbers running through there, so you should at the very least be able to make a contest if you miss kick ect.

This non sense you get hurt less up the wing is bs just look at our last 2 season's. All the opposition team does is fire a quick disposal off into the center and bam straight down the guts becuase all our players are on the wing.

A wide game plan can work if it is used in conjunction with the corridor or at the very least switching play, so that the other team doesn't just allow u space into where they want because they can set up a zone further down the field and stagnate your play.

Also coming down the boundary reduces the area your forwards have to lead making it easier for a 3rd defender to peel off.


There are a lot more negatives to our game plan atm then there are positives.

 

[ThePiesHaveEyesForPrize]

Well a lot of people aren't happy with it but it's just a different gameplan with it's strengths and flaws.

The theory is if you make a mistake in the middle of the ground your opponent can more easily punish you. If you do it on the boundary line, the opponent doesn't have enough space to damage you, and you'll probably get a throw in which gives you another chance to win the ball back. Obviously it's a little harder to attack yourself.

It makes entries inside 50 more predictable (and IMO makes decision making much simpler provided you don't come in via the boundary but with a little room to move), which is good for your forwards, but also good for opposing defenders.

It can be and has been done right, just because it's not what Geelong are Hawthorn do doesn't make it right. Most premiership teams have a completely different gameplan to the premier the year before.

I'm not against a wide gameplan as long as we mix it up to break the ultimate drawback of playing wide: predictability. That means bringing it through the middle every now and again. If we play wide a lot, we should spread the defence and have a lot of space in the middle, so when we do get loose there we should be able to have more higher quality attacks. It's like in American football. If you persist with a strong running game, defenders commit for the run and respect it more, however it also means it opens up your passing game because they won't expect it. This is how we should play the wide gameplan.

Also another key to playing wide is the ability to switch, which we don't seem to be able to do regularly.

so he's coaching with mistakes in mind, rather than backing his players to take the game on and hit targets.

when you see some of our skills you can see why he coaches that way, but would like to see the plan thrown out at some stage and just see what happens!

also the point about a mistake being made on the boundary line. if a mistake is made on the boundary it will result in the corridor being used as that's where our players arent! watch the lovett run again, the clearance was on the wing, he gathered in the corridor and we had no corridor protection in place because all of our players were boundary side.

so what does this mean? it means a mistake anywhere on the field can hurt us, so he should just bloody coach to win and not with (upcoming)mistakes in mind! it's a very negative game plan, one without faith in his own coaching really (skillwise)

 

[loki04]

so he's coaching with mistakes in mind, rather than backing his players to take the game on and hit targets.

when you see some of our skills you can see why he coaches that way, but would like to see the plan thrown out at some stage and just see what happens!

also the point about a mistake being made on the boundary line. if a mistake is made on the boundary it will result in the corridor being used as that's where our players arent! watch the lovett run again, the clearance was on the wing, he gathered in the corridor and we had no corridor protection in place because all of our players were boundary side.

so what does this mean? it means a mistake anywhere on the field can hurt us, so he should just bloody coach to win and not with (upcoming)mistakes in mind! it's a very negative game plan, one without faith in his own coaching really (skillwise)

He is the one who picks the players that play, some of the people in our top 22 other teams would of moved on or delisted.

The rest of your post is spot on though.

 

[Dansolo]

Nice one, Jabso. Totally agree - particularly with the NFL analogy.